Swords Banned In Australia

[Tgace]

http://www.haciendapub.com/stolinsky.html

Israel and Switzerland, where most adult males keep military-type guns at home, have low homicide rates, so easy access to guns cannot be the key factor in homicide. Some nations with strict anti-gun laws also have low homicide rates, but is this cause and effect? The low homicide rate in the United Kingdom holds for both gun and non-gun homicides; strict gun laws cannot account for a low rate of fatal beatings. Japan has harsh anti-gun and anti-crime laws and a low homicide rate, but Japanese-Americans, who live under our laws and have access to guns, also have a low homicide rate. Japanese immigrants bring something with them that inhibits homicide and is transmitted to their children and grandchildren. It may be self-control or love of education, but it has nothing to do with laws. Cultural factors are clearly important. To study the effect of gun laws, statisticians would first have to correct for all the cultural differences between various nations. Not enough is known to do this. The best we can do is observing what happens when new gun laws are passed in the U.S. and Germany, or when Japanese live in the U.S. In these cases, little effect of gun laws is seen.

So perhaps it is our "culture" that bears the responsibility. We as a Nation are fairly "young" and the days of the Settlers, Mountian Men, Wild West etc. are not really very far in our collective past. The whole "Rugged Individualist" and all. However, if you look at other cultures you see that they have "glorified" violence as well. Japanese Warrior traditions, The Illiad and the Oddesy, Heck WWII Germany and their whole obsession with Martial culture...what makes us really any different? Granted I am personally disgusted with the whole "Hip Hop" culture with its glorification of Drug/Gang violence (just listen to some Rap lyrics) as well as some of the video games out there, but can you really place all the blame on them? This is a large and complex issue....

 

[MisterMike]

OK, MM, if the guys--and it is guys--obsessed with getting all kindsa nifty guns, regardless of their usefulness are, "exceptions rather than the rule," why do they seem to be everywhere, why do stores sell so many handguns, and why don't people just go buy a good shotgun?

I don't see 'em. Maybe because I live in Massachusetts? (for another month anyways - *whew*) Why don't people limit their selection to shotguns? Well, I suppose most everyone ain't a hunter. Maybe they would like to be able to carry their weapon holstered. Shotguns get a little heavy after a while. And, guns aren't just for home and property protection, but personal as well - even when you're outside of your home, imagine that.

What do they sell at gun shows--plain old good shotguns, target rifles, good hunting rifles? Plain old knives? or is it every fancy weapon they can get their hands on?

It's a lawfull industry. No fault in that.

The real issue is that the anti-gun folks want to take away the fancy ones and the good ol' shotguns. They toss around fear tactics about "loopholes" and gun shows, when, well, I've never even seen a gun show hosted around New England. You'd think they happen every day. All 3 of them.

Here's a thought - it aint the guy at the gun show legally purchasing a firearm holding up all your California Taco Bells, Robert. Maybe you guys should work a little harder tarnishing the image of the bad guys.

 

[Tgace]

90% of the street guns I have seen are crap......

 

[rmcrobertson]

Ah yes, my endless support for criminals; a point I make again and again: "I wish there were more criminals!"

My point--if you'll actually read--was that gun and knife shows feature weapons that cater to the desire for something that isn't self-defense (get a shotgun, get pepper spray, practice a martial art, get a CCW and an old-fashioned revolver), that isn't hunting (whatever happened to the, "one shot, one kill," ethic I was taught as a kid? when did it get replaced with, "spray the area?"), that isn't even target shooting or skeet or whatever. They cater to what I'd call a boy's fascination with things that go bang, to the fantasy of infinite threat on the streets, to the fantasy of survivalism against aliens, the government, ZOG, whatever.

Please show me some vague sort of support, or documentation, for the claim that gun control types are trying to take away shotguns, hunting rifles, target rifles, etc.

Oh, and by the way--I also made the point that I though grownups should be able to own, carry, and if necesssary use guns--I just don't agree with their glamorization, and I don't think our society encourages responsible behavior--and making SWORDS illegal--that's just weird.

 

[Tgace]

I dunno Robert, a gun is a gun. Granted there is marketing and fetishism going on. Cant deny that 100%. But a .375 revolver and a Glock 22, when you come down to it, will probably wind up firing the same ammout of rounds in a typical firearms encounter. Most of the differences are just capacity and cosmetics.

From a common sense self-defense perspective its more about how often you train with a weapon than it is about design, capacity or caliber. My nifty little G27 only holds 10 rounds. 4 more than a six-gun. Not really an "ultimate killing machine". Just easier to carry and operate from my level of experience and training.

 

[arnisador]

I don't buy a drop in deaths due to better medical care. Things haven't improved that much in surgical care. Better emergency response times would be a more likely explanation--getting them to the hospital sooner.

 

[MisterMike]

A fascination with things that go bang has always been there. Times change and so does arms development. 40-50 years ago the Lone Ranger was getting kids all pumped up over a six shooter. The Duke had the same thing and a rifle. Nobody was shouting the sky is falling like they are now. And that was bleeding edge. It's evolution baby. I thought you guys supported that.

Gun shows see a lot of vets who have used them come out. You don't have teenagers poppin in to buy that latest AK mod. Again, attacking gun shows isn't the solution to gun violence.

 

[Cruentus]

Personally, I'm afraid that my position is kinda the same as my position on Roe v. Wade--I think grownups should ideally be able to have pretty much anything in the way of weapons. Problem is, I also think that, a) "grownups," means people who have thought through issues like self-defense intelligently and fairly clear-headedly, gone out and got trained, and got over their fascination with toys; b) we live in a society that encourages violent fantasies, and actual violence, and solving your problems the ready and easy way. This is not a good combination.

artyon: Yay...Well, I can't disagree with that statement.

Arnisador: Your probably right about it being more related to medical response times then actual care, but I am not a doctor, I omly wish I played one on T.V.

Tgace: Your also making valid points regarding violence. The conclusion that one can make from it is that for every country that has high levels of violence, there is a totality of a circumstance that makes them that way. And, these circumstances could be vastly different from country to country. Example, why an african country under dictatorship has violence might differ greatly then why we might have violence.

Paul

 

[shesulsa]

SWORDS will be outlawed from July under new laws to curb the growing use of the weapons in street brawls.

Police Minister Andre Haermeyer said the ban would help police overcome a culture of young people arming themselves with swords.

"For most people running around the street carrying swords there is absolutely no reason for them to be carrying those weapons," he said yesterday.

<snip>

The sword ban follows a string of recent attacks and a regulatory impact statement undertaken by the State Government last year.

Last week, a 13-year-old boy was arrested and charged after allegedly charging police with a sword near Castlemaine, in central Victoria.

A 21-year-old man had his hand severed by a samurai sword in a confrontation between 40 men in the Fitzroy Gardens a fortnight ago -- the second brawl involving swords in 24 hours.

Huy Huynh, 19, was chased from the Salt nightclub and hacked to death nearby in July 2002 by a mob using samurai swords and machetes.

<snip>

Mr Haermeyer warned that police would be actively hunting for knives and swords after being given new powers and 480 metal detectors late last year, allowing them to search people they reasonably suspected were carrying weapons.

Well I don't live in Australia. But I have to wonder ... why swords??? Do the Kill Bill movies and such have anything to do with this?

Perhaps the availability and affordability of practice and decorative swords has something to do with it? Here in the states you can go to the blade store in the mall and buy a standard katana for anywhere between $75 and $700 dollars. They're less if you go to an overflow market or an imports store.

A ban on edged weapons such as knives, however, is intriguing. We've talked before in these forums on the dangers of knife attack and I'd hate hate hate to give mine up.

What do you all think about this?

 

[rmcrobertson]

The point about "Kill Bill," is exactly right: this has a lot to do with fashion and marketing (though in Australia, it occurs to be that there may also be a cultural component--one wonders if this isn't, at bottom, an anti-immigrant law), and little to do with actual practicality.

And no, we have not always been fascinated with things that go boom. Because the human race did not always have things that go boom: historically speaking, guns don't go back before about 1400 or so--and it's my guess that by the time you got the average arquebus loaded and mounted and the fuse lit, some of the bloom had gone off the rose.

Moreover, it's only been pretty recently that we had this country flooded with handguns of all nifty types. And, I'd argue, that flooding is a direct result of marketing: it has nothing to do with necessity, because the streets of any big American city 150 years ago were far more dangerous for the majority of their inhabitants than they are now.

 

[Angelusmortis]

Right. I'm sorry for causing offence to people, but having seen many results of bladed weapons, I can't stand to see them in the hands of people that ought not to have them. And until society does reach it's zenith, we're going to continue having this debate.

Also, my gripe is not with Americans, but with the worlds most powerful country, that is the main exporter of "hip-hop" style, ghetto culture, and it's glamourising of violence. Be it a gun, or a razor sharp katana, the results in the damage they cause to the families left behind are identical. I've said it before on this forum, where America leads...The US alone, however, is not solely responsible for the spread of the glamourisation of violence. It is on the increase the world over, in Western culture, a growing disenfranchisement with their lot, in the "3rd World" for the sheer terrible-ness (is that a word?) of their lives, and in the middle??? Politicians. Lawyers. Corporations. Bankers. The list goes on. As for arming everyone? I'm becoming a hermit if that happens, gonna go up into the mountains, and fish. Sounds like the dog's bollocks to me. Peace.

 

[Cryozombie]

Well I don't live in Australia. But I have to wonder ... why swords???

It's my undertstanding that in Kangaroo Land, after they banned firearm ownership and rounded em all up, there was a HUGE outbreak of violent attacks with machetes and other "large bladed" weapons.

Because of this, they are banning swords.

Perhaps there will then be a HUGE outbreak of violent attacks with hammers and other "carpentry" tools and they will ban those as well.

 

[FearlessFreep]

Maybe the martial artists there just need to sit back and let the technologyy curve come back to them...

 

[rmcrobertson]

I quite agree. My country--and the Russians, the Chinese, the Israelis, the South Africans, the Cubans, the French, the Ukranians...{insert name of advanced industrial nation here} have been spreading weapons, weapons training, and the culture of violence for god knows how many years now---and we're shocked, shocked, that these chickens are occasionally flying home to roost, and take a little poop on our heads.

While some think violence settles everything, I think violence endlessly defers dealing with problems onto other people and the next generation.

 

[Tgace]

Back to our regularly scheduled program of training to punch, kick, chop, stomp, lock, break and throw our fellow human beings...oh yeah, thats now a "spiritual" endeavor.

 

[rmcrobertson]

If you can't figure out the fundamental differences between working to gain self-confidence, strength, and the ability to defend oneself on one hand, and the endless, profit-and-politics driven distribution of weapons and the technology of death to countries entangled by ethnic and religious hatred on the other, well, that's a pity.

Fer crissake, episodes of "Star Trek," show more-developed understanding of the moral issues involved.

Or perhaps try practicality--what exactly were the CIA's contributions to the development of the Taliban and the military education of Osama bin Laden? I forget.

 

[Angelusmortis]

I quite agree. Therein lies the difference in training in MA. It "SHOULD" be about making a concerted effort in learning how to defend yourself, not go out looking for confrontation. There's a whole world of difference. There's the way the world ought to be, and there's the way it is. It's crap, but unfortunate.

 

[Adept]

It's my undertstanding that in Kangaroo Land, after they banned firearm ownership and rounded em all up, there was a HUGE outbreak of violent attacks with machetes and other "large bladed" weapons.

Because of this, they are banning swords.

Perhaps there will then be a HUGE outbreak of violent attacks with hammers and other "carpentry" tools and they will ban those as well.

Not really. After the ban there was a decrease in crime over-all, but an increase in violent crime. Firearm ownership isn't banned, it's just restricted.

The point about "Kill Bill," is exactly right: this has a lot to do with fashion and marketing (though in Australia, it occurs to be that there may also be a cultural component--one wonders if this isn't, at bottom, an anti-immigrant law), and little to do with actual practicality.

It isn't so much an anti-immigrant law as a vote garnering law. In Australia, particularly in the state of Victoria (which is where the legislation in question is in place) there is a large voting demographic known as 'The Doctors Wives'. They are usually the pacifist suburbanites who don't take the time to inform themselves about an issue, but hold a strong opinion never the less. When an opportunity to gain votes from these people, while only upsetting the much smaller demographic of firearm or other weapons owners, the government will take it. They did the same thing after the Port Arthur Massacre, and the Monash Uni shootings.

But you are right, the laws themselves have little to do with practicality.

If you can't figure out the fundamental differences between working to gain self-confidence, strength, and the ability to defend oneself on one hand, and the endless, profit-and-politics driven distribution of weapons and the technology of death to countries entangled by ethnic and religious hatred on the other, well, that's a pity.

Well, it all starts to get very complicated about now, as we encounter the notions of 'the lesser of two evils' and 'pre-emptive action'.

Sure, the USA armed and trained elements of the Taliban and OBL. If they hadn't, maybe the russkies would have taken Afghanistan. Maybe the world would have been much worse off. Maybe. No one really knows.

Anyway, trying desperately to drag the thread back on topic - The swords went from 'restricted weapons' to 'prohibited weapons'. Before, it was illegal to carry them down the street without a very good reason. Now, it's also illegal to have them in your home unless you have adequate storage facilites and the appropriate license. The list of prohibited weapons is, IMHO, well and truly over the top and the product of a paranoid and deluded government. It includes, but is not limited to -

Pepper spray, mace and similar.
Accoustic devices such as airhorns.
Any knife with a two edged blade.
Any knife with a sheath. Yes, this includes the filleting knife you keep in the fishing tackle box.
A laser pointer with sufficient output.
A cat-o-nine-tails with knotted lashes. Will result in some 'interesting' license applications, I'm sure.
A shanghai or slingshot designed for commercial production.
Armoured vests of just about any kind.
About any type of martial arts weapon you would care to name, from katana through shuriken and shaken to nunchaku and even extendable batons.

I was reading through the list on my application form and thinking of all the things I have in my house, and all the hoops I have to jump through just to have my toys, and shaking my head in disgust. If they had a 'shall-issue' policy I wouldn't mind so much, but what we have is very far removed from that.

 

[Tgace]

Apparently when I wasnt looking all martial artists became pure spiritual beings only interested in self-development, exercise and self-defense (no ego or martial fantasy whatsoever). While all gun owners became scared, untrained rubes grasping their guns like talismans...or became criminals. :idunno:

 

[rmcrobertson]

Good to know that all that stuff I've repeatedly posted about the intellectual limitations of imposing simplistic binary oppositions upon discourse and upon reality has gone essentially unheard.

And good to know that whatever it costs us, "the market," will solve everything.